Compare how Mitch Fifield and Nick McKim voted on Senate electoral reform

Now this is where it gets a bit tricky… Two people might vote the same way on votes they both attended, so their votes are 100% in agreement. They might also have voted in a way we’d describe differently when looking at all of one person's votes. If the other person didn’t or couldn’t have attended those votes we leave those out of the comparison. Because that just wouldn’t be fair now, would it?

Most important divisions relevant to this policy

These are the most important divisions related to the policy “for Senate electoral reform” which either Mitch Fifield or Nick McKim could have attended. They are weighted much more strongly than other divisions when calculating the position of Mitch Fifield and Nick McKim on this policy. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division	Mitch Fifield	Nick McKim	Supporters vote
17th Mar 2016, 5:21 PM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - Second Reading - Agree with the bill's main idea	Yes	absent	Yes
17th Mar 2016, 1:30 PM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - Third Reading - Pass the bill	Yes	absent	Yes
17th Mar 2016, 12:58 PM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - in Committee - Agree to the bill	Yes	absent	Yes
2nd Mar 2016, 11:45 AM – Senate Commonwealth Electoral Amendment Bill 2016 - First Reading - Read for the first time	Yes	Yes	Yes

Other divisions relevant to this policy

These are less important divisions which are related to the policy “for Senate electoral reform” which either Mitch Fifield or Nick McKim could have attended. Where a person could not have attended a division because they were not a member of parliament at the time (or in the wrong house) it is marked as "-".

Division	Mitch Fifield	Nick McKim	Supporters vote
no votes listed